HOTEL INDRAPRASTHA Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this Writ Petition challenging Ext.P8 order of the second respondent rejecting application for FL-3 licence submitted by the petitioner. The only reason for rejection of the petitioner's application is contained in the last paragraph of Ext.P8. The last two paragraphs of Ext.P8 are extracted hereunder:-

(2.) A perusal of Ext.P8 shows that there is no dispute regarding the factual aspects. The petitioner's application for FL-3 licence is dated 20.3.2012. The petitioner's hotel has been granted star classification on 23.7.2012, with effect from 20.7.2012. Ext.P8 order is passed on 11.2.2013. Therefore, as on the date of issuing Ext.P8 order, the petitioner was eligible to be granted an FL-3 licence. However, the second respondent has rejected his application on the ground that as on 20.3.2012, the petitioner's hotel had no valid star classification entitling him to apply for the licence. One fails to understand why the authority should consider the position as on 20.3.2012 while considering an application on 11.2.2013. If the petitioner had no valid star classification on 20.3.2012 the authority could have rejected his application on the said date itself. Having kept the application pending for about an year, having permitted the petitioner to rectify the alleged defect, there is absolutely no justification for projecting the same as a reason for rejecting his application. The inconsistent stand of the second respondent is further evident from Ext.P11 order issued in the case of another applicant, maintaining that it is the law applicable as on the date of consideration of the application that has to be considered. Ext.P11 is dated 2.3.2013 (erroneously shown as 2.3.2012) whereas the impugned order is dated 11.2.2013. It is clear from the above that Ext.P8 has been issued without any proper application of mind. My attention has also been drawn to Ext.P9 order passed by this Court in contempt proceedings wherein it has been found that the issue of the impugned order Ext. P8 was only to avoid further proceedings in the said petition. Paragraphs 8 and 9 of Ext.P9 order read as follows:-